Justice Annabelle Bennett today said Apple had a prima facie case that Samsung had infringed two of its patents relating to touch screens and the gestures that control them.

Justice Bennett said: "From April 15 when proceedings commenced in the US, Samsung proceeded with its eyes wide open.

Advertisement

"The balance of convenience was almost even ... there were several factors that favoured Apple."

The interlocutory hearing, which considered whether Samsung's competing tablet should be banned from the Australian market, revealed for the first time how serious a threat Apple regards Samsung to be.

Samsung previously agreed not to market nor sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia until Justice Bennett handed down her decision.

On October 4, Samsung told the court it would scrap the release of the Galaxy 10.1 if the injunction were granted because missing the Christmas season would make the new tablet "dead" by the time it reached market.

However, Justice Bennett said she had to weigh this consideration against the loss and injury that could be caused to Apple should Samsung be allowed to sell the iPad rival.

The dispute will procede to a full hearing, which is unlikely to occur before next year.

Justice Bennett told the parties she would give them the opportunity for an early hearing next month, the result of which would not prejudice the outcome of the full hearing when it came to trial.

Samsung statement

In a statement, Samsung Electronics said it was disappointed with the ruling and would be seeking legal advice on its options.

"Samsung will continue its legal proceeding against Apple's claim in order to ensure our innovative products remain available to consumers," it said.

"This is a part of our ongoing legal proceeding against Apple's claim. Samsung is also confident it can prove Apple's violation of Samsung's wireless technology patents through a cross-claim filed on September 16, 2011 with the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales.

"Our wireless standard patents are essential for mobile business. We will continue to legally assert our intellectual property rights against those who violate Samsung's patents and free ride on our technology."

Apple statement

Apple reissued a statement it made when it launched the legal proceedings, saying: "It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging. This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas."

Main threat

In previous hearings, Apple lawyers have revealed how the company sees the Galaxy Tab 10.1 as the main competitor to the iPad 2.

But Samsung argues that its tablet will be largely competing with other Android-based models and that consumers would be deciding whether they wanted Apple's iOS or Android, rather than deciding by comparing the Galaxy Tab 10.1 with the iPad 2.

Similar Apple v Samsung cases are running all over the world. In other jurisdictions Samsung has raised the Stanley Kubrick film 2001: A Space Odyssey as an example of "prior art", since an iPad-like tablet device appears in the film.

Difficult position

Without having viewed the full details of the injunction, Mark Summerfield, a senior associate with Melbourne intellectual property law firm Watermark, said the decision puts Samsung in a difficult position.

"They could launch what was, in effect, a hobbled version of the tablet," Mr Summerfield said.

"Apple would of course be hoping that, by removing some of these desirable features, it would be a less desirable product and therefore the iPad 2 would remain the preferred product in the market.

"I frankly doubt that they're going to get a competitive product on to the market before Christmas, which is clearly something that is important to them.

"So Apple will be very happy."

Mr Summerfield said he at first thought it would be difficult for Apple to succeed in getting an injunction because courts are traditionally reluctant about stopping products from entering a competitive market.

"For a product such as this, I initially wouldn't have really expected it.

"As the proceedings went on, it seemed to me that it became quite finely balanced and I think that, when the actual hearing concluded last week, my view was that it really could go either way."

Foad Fadaghi, research director at telecommunications analyst company Telsyte, said the injunction is a significant blow to the market.

''Samsung was seen as one of the main competitors for the iPad out there with their 10.1 device.

''It has meant there will be less products available on the market.''

Mr Fadaghi said Samsung is likely to have lost many millions of dollars trying to launch the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

''Not just in the court case but in the preliminary efforts that any vendor needs to go into to bring a product to market, particularly when you talk about retail presence, partnerships, channels to market, telco relationships, money that would have had to be spent in marketing.